Will content be king? Or will pretty pictures reign supreme?

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Personally, I hope it's a combination of the two. :)

For me though... it has always been about the content. A movie can look beautiful, but if the story doesn't work... it just doesn't matter.

On the other hand.... I find that a movie shot on a cellphone could win as long as the story captivates me.

I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks.

Luckily in the past we've had some winners that not only looked great, but also had a great story to tell as well!

Cheers,

Mike

[Charlie Anderson]

Well for my sake I sure hope it's content and the teary eye effect ;) can't have too much camera tricks for a doc but I do go crazy with my macro lens for some upclose pics from a yearbook from the 40's

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Mmmm.... macro.

:D

[Charlie Anderson]

http://images.stratatekstudios.com/Sweetheart/SH6.png
http://images.stratatekstudios.com/Sweetheart/SH7.png

pretty redic if you ask me

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Nice grabs! :thumbup:

Alright, I started a thread about content vs pretty and we're already looking at pretty pictures. :D

[Dustin R. Rogan]

well I have a great story if i might say so myself (kinda biased, i wrote it) and descent pictures...so i'll go with story over picture but picture is part of the judging thing

[mikkowilson]

I find that those who have taken the time to wirte a really good story, generally have no problem producing good pictures AND SOUND to tell it.

:)

- Mikko

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

well I have a great story if i might say so myself (kinda biased, i wrote it) and descent pictures...so i'll go with story over picture but picture is part of the judging thing
Maybe for the cinematography award. :thumbsup:

[Mark Johnson]

As a partial answer to the question, how about looking at the winners of the last four fests. Do you think those were primarily won on frame or story? Don't cop out and say "both" unless you really mean it. I'm truly interested in what people think has been the recipe for success up til now.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I find that those who have taken the time to wirte a really good story, generally have no problem producing good pictures AND SOUND to tell it.

:)

- Mikko
Usually.

Sound is a no-brainer. Unless it's a Silent film.
If people are talking and you can't make out what they're saying... the movie is dead. I assumed that the sound would be there. Now music is something different entirely... but let's stay on track. ;)

[Zim]

The last fest I voted for the films that had a good story. The ones I liked.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

As a partial answer to the question, how about looking at the winners of the last four fests. Do you think those were primarily won on frame or story? Don't cop out and say "both" unless you really mean it. I'm truly interested in what people think has been the recipe for success up til now.Is it a cop out if I already declared my answer to your question in the first post?? Long before you asked it.





Luckily in the past we've had some winners that not only looked great, but also had a great story to tell as well!

Cheers,

Mike

^ Generally, I believe this has been the case. Especially for first place. Maybe one or two pretty ones slipped in the top 3 on occasion but generally I believe what I said above to be true.

Now, can you answer your own question? Just curious.

[kurtmo]

Tell a story - A film has gotta have a point for me or there is no point at all. It needs to tell a story that I or someone else will care about.

Interesting characters - The film needs to have engaging characters that we understand their motivation and care about. In a short this can be a really rough task.

Consistency - The piece needs to make sense. Motives, actions, props, characters and settings need to fit the story. The end result should be a natural consequences/organic feel. Mood fits in here, too.

If it does all the above, then I better be able to hear it well and be visually appealing.

[Barry_Green]

I find that those who have taken the time to wirte a really good story, generally have no problem producing good pictures AND SOUND to tell it.
Among our DVXFest entrants, that's pretty much true. But I'd argue that it's not necessary -- look at "Battle At Kruger." Fascinating story, hideous handheld camera work on a home handycam with an onboard mic. But it's just great...

So content trumps pretty pictures!

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

So content trumps pretty pictures!

:thumbup:

:)

[artofsuntzu]

Tell a story - A film has gotta have a point for me or there is no point at all. It needs to tell a story that I or someone else will care about.

Interesting characters - The film needs to have engaging characters that we understand their motivation and care about. In a short this can be a really rough task.

Consistency - The piece needs to make sense. Motives, actions, props, characters and settings need to fit the story. The end result should be a natural consequences/organic feel. Mood fits in here, too.

If it does all the above, then I better be able to hear it well and be visually appealing.

Great points.

If I may add, it's also nice to have the 'visually appealing' shots be intertwined with the story. For example, if I can cut out a beauty, rack focus, shot on an object, and plot advancement doesn't suffer, then I find it hard to justify keeping the shot in the movie. (but I'll store the clip for my demo reel :) )

[Mark Harris]

Tell a story - A film has gotta have a point for me or there is no point at all. It needs to tell a story that I or someone else will care about.

Interesting characters - The film needs to have engaging characters that we understand their motivation and care about. In a short this can be a really rough task.

Consistency - The piece needs to make sense. Motives, actions, props, characters and settings need to fit the story. The end result should be a natural consequences/organic feel. Mood fits in here, too.

If it does all the above, then I better be able to hear it well and be visually appealing.

I might be in trouble, because some of my favorite films don't do these things at all...:)

[mikkowilson]

Among our DVXFest entrants, that's pretty much true. But I'd argue that it's not necessary -- look at "Battle At Kruger." Fascinating story, hideous handheld camera work on a home handycam with an onboard mic. But it's just great...

So content trumps pretty pictures!

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you there.

The success of YouTube is all that's needed to demonstrate how how much content has on quality.


My comment was more in line with the 'fests though, as that seems to be the topic at hand.

- Mikko

[Zak Forsman]

I might be in trouble, because some of my favorite films don't do these things at all...:)

agreed. i'm more likely to vote for the filmmaker that submits a flawed entry, but still expresses their unique point of view, builds its story on a foundation of character, doesn't get caught up in "plot", demonstrates an assured intent for the medium, takes risks, and takes a big dump on the idea of trying to emulate mainstream, hollywood conventions -- something with its own signature, a developing voice.

that being said, i have pretty high expectations for good|sam.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

and takes a big dump on the idea of trying to emulate mainstream, hollywood conventions.
I couldn't agree with this more.

I also think that we need more movies that are not always wrapped up in a pretty little bow.
I personally love movies that leave you wondering and asking questions. Movies that leave you to fill in the gaps.

Thankfully... we're seeing a few of those on occasion lately.

[smashedburrito]

and takes a big dump on the idea of trying to emulate mainstream, hollywood conventions --

Crap, it looks like our shot for shot remake of The Notebook is screwed then.

I would hope good story is what reigns king. During the production it is always the film with the prettiest grabs that get the most attention, but ultimately once the films are screened the ones with the best story usually take the cake. My favorite from last fest, Meat, wasn't the prettiest, but it had a fun, entertaining story, and won second.

Then again complimenting your story with good images is always a plus.

Oh and SOUND indeed. I'd rather listen to a crappy looking movie then watch a crappy sounding movie.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Tell a story - A film has gotta have a point for me or there is no point at all. It needs to tell a story that I or someone else will care about.

Interesting characters - The film needs to have engaging characters that we understand their motivation and care about. In a short this can be a really rough task.

Consistency - The piece needs to make sense. Motives, actions, props, characters and settings need to fit the story. The end result should be a natural consequences/organic feel. Mood fits in here, too.

If it does all the above, then I better be able to hear it well and be visually appealing.


I might be in trouble, because some of my favorite films don't do these things at all...:)

Mark I would say no country and your Love Fest entry both do all of the above to a "T".

Telling a story, having a point, and making sense do not mean it has to be a grand argument story. No Country is a moral contemplation, that's it's point, where the characters do things for very grounded reasons, and the sense it makes or again maybe it's point is that we're in much the same place that we began.

Maybe you're talking about some other movies we haven't discussed, but I don't think the movies you like are truly pointless and have characters doing nothing.

Even Lost in Translation (which I don't know if you like or not) fulfills all of the above points very well. It and No Country just both happen to have challenging endings for an audience, IMHO.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Mark I would say no country and your Love Fest entry both do all of the above to a "T".

Telling a story, having a point, and making sense do not mean it has to be a grand argument story. No Country is a moral contemplation, that's it's point, where the characters do things for very grounded reasons, and the sense it makes or again maybe it's point is that we're in much the same place that we began.

Maybe you're talking about some other movies we haven't discussed, but I don't think the movies you like are truly pointless and have characters doing nothing.

Even Lost in Translation (which I don't know if you like or not) fulfills all of the above points very well. It and No Country just both happen to have challenging endings for an audience, IMHO.
This is exactly the movie I was thinking of when I wrote this...

I couldn't agree with this more.

I also think that we need more movies that are not always wrapped up in a pretty little bow.
I personally love movies that leave you wondering and asking questions. Movies that leave you to fill in the gaps.

Thankfully... we're seeing a few of those on occasion lately.

Currently discussing just that in another part of the forum.

Cheers,

Mike

[Mark Harris]

Jack, why you trying to ruin my indie-cred?

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

heh heh, right sorry ... no story, no point = awesome :grin::beer:

[Blaine]

As a partial answer to the question, how about looking at the winners of the last four fests. Do you think those were primarily won on frame or story? Don't cop out and say "both" unless you really mean it. I'm truly interested in what people think has been the recipe for success up til now.While most of the winners had both good stories AND pretty pictures, I feel there were a couple of entries that ended up where they did ENTIRELY on looking good. (NTTAWWT)

[Kholi]

With Blaine. It's not always the content that wins the fests. But, story IS recognized here, which is good.

Considering the lot of us do take the image seriously, the most filmlike or pretty one always gets a lot of attention. Nothin' wrong with that.

[Gohanto]

Personally, I'm a larger fan of content, but I think the biggest reason to have pretty pictures and good sound IS NOT to show off, but rather focus the audience's attention on the story. I've seen and reviewed shorts that are well written and shot on Handicam, and honestly most of the time all I can ever focus on is the technical problems.

I think thats why a lot of non-filmmaking people prefer watching bad Hollywood movies over independent films. It's usually most people's choice to get wrapped into a bad story easily, than to have to constantly ignore technical problems just to follow the story.

Shooting on a GS500 personally, I'm really hoping content rules.